What are leases and rental agreements?

Useful Resources for Leases and Rental Agreements

Recent Rulings on Leases and Rental Agreements

26-50 of 10000 results

JENNY MARCHICK VS KENYA REEVES-COSTA, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s initial complaint alleged the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) breach of written contract; (3) fraud; (4) constructive fraud; and (5) breach of fiduciary duty. On August 31, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ unopposed demurrer to the second and third causes of action in the complaint and sustained such demurrer with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BARRY IRA ROSEN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].) Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff also brings her seventh cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, which is based on the allegations that Defendants “subjected Plaintiff to retaliation in the form of adverse job actions and/or constructive discharge in violation of the public policies of the State of California which prohibit employers from sexually harassing, discriminating based on gender and retaliating against employees for opposing conduct that violates Section 12940, Labor Code § 6310 and Labor

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JOSE HERNANDEZ, BY AND THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MARIA G. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER A CORPORATION, ET AL.

In order to establish willful misconduct, a plaintiff must prove not only the elements of a negligence cause of action, that is, duty, breach of duty, causation, and damage, but also (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril. (Doe, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at 1140.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

VIP REAL ESTATE, ET AL. VS SARA SOLIS, ET AL.

On April 15, 2020, Cross-Complainants filed the Subject First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”), which asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Constructive Fraud; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligence – Failure to Supervise; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200; (7) Comparative Indemnity; (8) Contribution; (9) Declaratory Relief – Indemnity; and (10) Declaratory Relief – Commissions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANDRA SANCHEZ VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: “(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or “(b) The public entity had actual or constructive

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

REBECCA COOPER VS KENNETH GRAY, ET AL.

., and 21st Century Wellness, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for (1) material misrepresentation in securities transaction; (2) breach of contract; (3) rescission; (4) conversion; (5) breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud negligent misrepresentation; (6) fraud; and (7) violation of Penal Code section 496(c). On June 21, 2019, Kenneth Gray, Mowgly Unlimited, Inc., and KAG Consulting, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JACQUELINE JONES VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS , ET AL.

The 3rd Cause of Action for wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy is also a separate and distinct cause of action and is pled in the alternative given the factual disputes presented here. Defendant argues in its moving papers that after nearly 40 years on the job the plaintiff suddenly retired. (Id. 8:16-22.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff 336 8TH LLC commenced this eviction case. On December 2, 2020, default was entered against defendant. On December 4, 2020, the Clerk issued a writ of possession. Defendant now moves to set aside/vacate the entry of default and quash the writ of possession. The motions are not opposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

801 S. GRAND AVENUE (LA), LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS DOHERTY & CATLOW, A LAW CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

This is a “constructive fraud” subdivision of section 3439.04. (Optional, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at 1402.) The FAC realleges in early 2019, prior to insolvency, Paul F. Sullivan & Associates transferred assets to other creditors where Paul F. Sullivan & Associates held personal loans for little or no consideration to divert the assets of Doherty & Catlow, despite knowing that Doherty & Catlow’s assets would be insufficient to pay rent to Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶¶ 81–31.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PB COMPANIES LLC V. TAYLOR JUDKINS

Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) disassociation and expulsion of defendant as member of Tank Farm Center, LLC; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud by concealment; (4) constructive fraud; (5) conversion; and (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and request for appointment of receiver. The action involves ownership and management of TFC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

JACQUELINE JONES VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS , ET AL.

The 3rd Cause of Action for wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy is also a separate and distinct cause of action and is pled in the alternative given the factual disputes presented here. Defendant argues in its moving papers that after nearly 40 years on the job the plaintiff suddenly retired. (Id. 8:16-22.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WILLIAM JEFFERSON VS DOUD ASSOCIATES INC., ET AL.

In order to impose liability on a property owner for a dangerous condition, the owner must have either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or have been able to discover the condition by the exercise of ordinary care. (Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1206.) Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendants were the owners, managers, controllers, and operators of their respective properties. (FAC, ¶¶ 24, 26, 34, 36.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SIX PLUS, LLC VS YARA ESPINOZA

In opposition, Defendant contends that the Temporary Eviction Moratorium due to Covid-19 bars Defendant’s eviction. Defendant submits the following evidence: · The two-year lease was to end on 4/30/20. (Espinoza Decl., ¶ 4.) · Defendant’s clothing business was adversely affected in March 2020 due to the US travel ban on China. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-8.) · On 3/4/20, the County of Los Angeles issued a Temporary Eviction Moratorium, which banned eviction of commercial tenants for nonpayment of rent. (Id. at ¶ 7.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CWI, INC., A KENTUCKY CORPORATION VS FLEETS 101, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

In opposition, Plaintiff explains that it is not seeking eviction based on the Sublease. The Sublease and the prior action were alleged in the Complaint to provide procedural background and history. This unlawful detainer action is based on a new 30-day notice under a periodic tenancy. Damages under a periodic tenancy was not litigated or decided in the first unlawful detainer matter.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EMAD YOUNIS VS ROBERT MELGOZA, ET AL.

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff in pro per filed a 19 cause of action complaint for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract (second and sixth causes of action), Conversion (third and ninth causes of action), Actual Fraud and Deceit (fourth and seventh causes of action), Constructive Fraud (fifth and eighth causes of action), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Unfair Competition, Unjust

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBBYN BURRIS VS ELI ANTHONY BREN, ET AL

Code §1714(a), 3333]; (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4) Violation of Civil Code section 1941.1., et seq. (5) Nuisance; (6) Retaliatory and Constructive Eviction; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On January 22, 2019, default was entered against Defendants and on September 16, 2019, default judgment was entered against Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JANE DOE VS FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC

Plaintiff’s allegations are enough to allege ABC’s actual or constructive knowledge of the risk that Milan would sexually harass and assault ABC’s customers in the way it is alleged he did. The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED. The allegations regarding the Yelp reviews are not irrelevant, improper or false under CCP §436. The motion to strike is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAIME CAMORLINGA VS CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC.

To raise a negligent act to the level of willful misconduct, a plaintiff must plead “(1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril.” (Id. at 528.) Given these differences with Plaintiff’s negligence and intentional tort claims, the Court will permit Plaintiff to allege willful misconduct as a separate theory of liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL PEREZ VS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MARGARITA BARRIOS VS JOSE MERCADO, ET AL.

What is more, imposing terminating sanctions against Plaintiff when Plaintiff did not have actual or constructive notice of the discovery motions would be void. (Lovato v. Santa Fe Internat Corp. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 549, 553; see also Higgins v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

DAPHNE HELAIRE, ET AL. VS G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Here, Demurring Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to show that Demurring Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ELIZABETH L. GREENWOOD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or¿ (b) The public entity had actual or constructive

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MIGUEL ANGEL HUERTA VS CURT VAN SCHULTZ, ET AL.

What is more, imposing terminating sanctions against Plaintiff when Plaintiff did not have actual or constructive notice of the discovery motions would be void. (Lovato v. Santa Fe Internat Corp. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 549, 553; see also Higgins v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MIRO MAZUR VS AIMCO VENEZIA, LLC, ET AL.

Given that Defendant has not met its initial burden of establishing that there was not a dangerous condition, the argument regarding actual or constructive notice fails as well. RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS A. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY AMICO 1. Sustained. 2. Sustained. 3. Sustained. There is not enough information regarding the purported rehabilitation for this fact to be relevant to the motion. 4. Sustained. 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.